Article 1: Classes in Capitalism and Pre-Capitalism by KARL MARX
Article 2: Class, Status, Party by MAX WEBER
Post requirement: you are asked to post your initial observations/questions/insights on our readings, spend some time perusing what others had to say about the same readings. You should write something engage other classmate to response your post.
250-300 words. You can mention material in the reading with sign "". Postings must be substantive and demonstrate that you have read and engaged with the material at hand. There will be no credit for merely posting random thoughts, word salad, or even your own "common sense" takes on the subject at hand. Postings must be directly and clearly informed by the reading material.
Guide reading for you:
-Marx, "Classes in Capitalism and Late Capitalism"
Basic terms to assist you:
Bourgeoise - the owners of capital - they own the means of production (raw materials, tool, machines, etc.) as private property.
Proletariat - workers - owners of "labour power" (the ability to work) - they sell their labour power to capitalist owners in exchange for a wage.
Guiding questions as you read:
Marx is trying to say something about the nature of classes here... Is the proletariat class a mere conglomeration of individual, aggrieved workers, or does the class exist as its own social force? Put differently, so you think that Marx would agree that we could understand the individual apart from her/his class position? Why or why not? Do you think he might say that economic structure precedes the individual... i.e., the individual is created and to an extent predetermined by economic factors, and thus cannot be fully understood outside of their embeddedness within a particular class?
-Weber, "Class, Status, Party"
Whereas Marx considers social structure to be primarily determined by economic relations, Weber is arguing that society is more multidimensional. Marx argued that economic position matters most for collective identity, while Weber makes it a bit more complicated. How so?
Weber is also interested in power, and argues convincingly that power runs through more social channels than economic life (ownership vs. non-ownership of the means of production, as Marx would have it) alone. Again, the reading is dense, but do your best to identify these channels. What, other than comparative wealth, allows the exercise and flow of power?